Piling on Irresponsibly Against Syria
Media scoundrels support Obama's rage for war.
by Stephen Lendman
When Washington and Israel plan war, even sources that know better pile on. Haaretz is no exception.
At times it reports responsibly. Other times it falls short. More on that below.
Founded in 1918, Haaretz is Israel's oldest broadsheet. Britain Mandate government sponsored it. In 1919, Zionist immigrants took control.
Initially it was called Hadashot Haaretz (News of the Land). Later it became Haaretz (The Land). In 1937, Salman Schocken bought the paper. In 1939, his son Gershom became editor-in-chief. He remained so until death in 1990.
Schocken family members maintained full ownership. In 2006, that changed. German publisher M. DeMont Schauberg acquired a 25% stake. Former Israeli German ambassador, Avi Primor, helped negotiate the deal.
In June 2011, Russian/Israeli businessman Leonid Nevzlin bought a 20% interest. Schoken family members now owns 60%. Gershom Schocken established Haaretz's editorial policy. Current chief editor Aluf Benn has responsibility.
It's published in Hebrew and English. It's also available online. It usually leans left but not always. It's followed closely by opinion makers within and outside Israel. The paper calls itself liberal on domestic and international affairs. Increasingly it falls short.
Sometimes it tries having it both ways. For example, in covering Nabka Day 2012, it published a photo showing a Palestinian stone thrower. Doing so was irresponsible.
In discussing Amnesty International's annual human rights report condemning Israeli excessive, sometimes lethal, force, another photo displayed Palestinian violence. Stone-throwing was again shown. An Israeli army bulldozer was portrayed as victim, not aggressor.
Haaretz also omitted vital information AI explained. At times when discussing clashes between soldiers and Palestinians, coverage slants one way. It suggests security forces respond to Palestinian provocations. It's virtually always the other way. Haaretz knows but won't say.
Its May 28 editorial reflects irresponsible opinion. Headlined "UN troops to Syria now," it said:
"The scope of the slaughter in Syria should be enough to justify purposeful action to show that the international community is not prepared to watch from the sidelines."